Recent Posts

China Daily reports that the Shanghai
government is currently mulling over a draft Good Samaritan law:

Residents of Shanghai can now see if their brave acts make the
cut as “heroic deeds”.

In a draft good Samaritan law, unveiled at a legal workers
seminar, a heroic deed is defined as an act taken to safeguard
national or public welfare, or other people’s personal safety or
financial security.

Those who brave a risk to combat illegal behaviors, assist
related departments to fight crimes, or take actions in
emergencies, can even apply for compensation and an award.

Acts obligated by law or by agreement, however, should not be
viewed as heroic deeds, the draft said.

This debate has taken place all over China within the last couple
of years, spurred on by a few notorious cases involving Good
Samaritans that were later accused of misdeeds or negligence.
Many commentators have bemoaned the fact that such solid
citizens, who were apparently acting out of the goodness of their
hearts, have been subject to legal liability. As they say, no
good deed goes unpunished.

But the fix is easier said than done. It’s one thing to say that
a person acting in good faith should be immune from liability,
but it’s another thing entirely trying to prove it to a judge or
a cop. That’s the problem I have with this whole “solution”.

Consider the proposed language cited above from China
Daily (I don’t have the original Chinese version). “An act
taken to safeguard national or public welfare, or other people’s
personal safety or financial security.” The latter two terms are
probably easier to define; they seem to refer to protection of an
individual or their property. On the other hand, national or
public welfare could mean just about anything, and I am reminded
of China’s problems with the slippery definition of “national
security.”

But even if we’re all the same page with this terminology, that
doesn’t mean that the underlying problem has been satisfactorily
dealt with. Consider for example the notorious (and somewhat
murky) Peng Yu case, where a young man helped out an old woman
who fell off a bus (she later sued him). Ultimately, this dispute
came down to eyewitness testimony and the age-old “he said she
said.” These kinds of tort cases are always fact specific and
very often involve two or more people with very different
accounts of the same events.

In addition to all that, the judge is now going to be charged
with figuring out whether one of the parties was acting in good
faith or not. Peng Yu says he was helping an old woman, she says
the young ruffian pushed her off the bus. The only way to
determine good faith is to first decide who is telling the truth.

Perhaps I’m being a little harsh though. In many cases, I’m sure
that eyewitness testimony can clearly show that the accused was
only trying to help. This draft law would at least limit
liability under those circumstances. Moreover, apparently the
draft law being considered in Shanghai would penalize folks for
turning against their would be saviors. If nothing else, that
would have a chilling effect on these lawsuits — although I’m not
sure that’s always a good thing.

By the way, I’m not sure if you noticed in that excerpt above,
but there’s also mention of assisting authorities with
emergencies and crime-fighting. I’m generally okay with
protecting bona fide Good Samaritans, but I’m not so keen on
encouraging vigilantes. “Yes officer, I did stick that knife in
that guy’s head, but I only did it because he was a threat to
national security. I have it on good authority that he was going
to put up that snarky 大字报 in a very prominent public space. Can I have
my hero badge now?”

Well, this is just a draft law, so there’ll be plenty of time to
whittle down the vague language. But I’m definitely not sold on
this so far.